4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A sexually dimorphic ratio of orbitofrontal to amygdala volume is altered in schizophrenia

Journal

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 55, Issue 5, Pages 512-517

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.10.009

Keywords

schizophrenia; sex differences; dimorphism; magnetic resonance imaging; orbitofrontal cortex; amygdala

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Neuroanatomic sexual dimorphisms have been correlated with behavioral differences between healthy men and women. We have reported higher orbitofrontal cortex to amygdala ratio (OAR) in women than men. Although gender differences in schizophrenia are evident clinically and correlate with neuroanatomic measures, their relationship to OAR has not been examined. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 31 neuroleptic-naive schizophrenic patients (16 men) and 80 healthy volunteers (34 men.), aged less than 50 years. An automated tissue segmentation procedure was combined with expert-guided parcellation of orbitofrontal and amygdala volumes. Results: Men with schizophrenia had increased OAR relative to healthy men, whereas women bad decreased OAR. Increased OAR in men with schizophrenia reflected abnormally low amygdala volumes, whereas decreased OAR in women reflected abnormally low orbitofrontal volumes. Less severe negative symptoms were associated with increased OAR in men but with decreased OAR in women. In men, increased amygdala volume was associated with greater symptom severity, whereas in women higher volumes of both amygdala and orbitofrontal regions were associated with lesser severity of negative symptoms. Conclusions: These opposite OAR abnormalities, whereby men show feminization and women masculinization, suggest gender-mediated effects of the underlying neuropathologic processes. The correlations with symptom severity suggest that neuroanatomic abnormalities in OAR reflect compensatory brain changes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available